• State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 89 subscribers
  • Views 622 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 264102
Options
This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Merge Provisioner and client(Light Switch)

him

Hi,

  I  want to merge provisioner and client to provision, configure and control multiple servers from the provisioner+client module.

SDK = nRF MESH SDK v4.2.0

Example = Light Switch

I have successfully merged provisioner and client but it could only configure one server while configuring the second server it's stuck at adding appkey step. The server successfully adds the appkey and sends  ACCESS_STATUS_SUCCESS  to the provisoner+client but the provisioner+client didn't proceed further and shows Acknowledged message status not received.

Can you help me with this?

Thanks

Regards

Himanshu

Parents
  • 0

    Hi,

     The issue has been resolved.

    Now i want to change the publication address of client from uart event, but it assert every time i try to change it on uart event. I have tried changing the address on button press, it works fine no issue.

    The assert is caused in  dirty_entries_process().

    Thanks

    Regards

    Himanshu

  • +1 in reply to him

    Hi,

    I am sorry for the delays.

    When a mesh API call works from one context but not from another context, it usually has to do with interrupt priority levels. Please consult the Setting interrupt priority levels chapter of the nRF5 SDK for Mesh documentation.

    As the current issue is very different from the original title and original question, please create a new thread if you have further questions. That way it will be easier for others in the future to find answers if they see a similar issue.

    Regards,
    Terje

  • 0 in reply to tesc

    Hi tesc,

    Instead of using a scheduler, we can just use a single shot timer to perform the task. I have tried it and it's working fine. Just need to know if it's the right decision to do so or not.

    Thanks 

    Regards 

    Himanshu

Reply
  • 0 in reply to tesc

    Hi tesc,

    Instead of using a scheduler, we can just use a single shot timer to perform the task. I have tried it and it's working fine. Just need to know if it's the right decision to do so or not.

    Thanks 

    Regards 

    Himanshu

Children
No Data
Related